Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:11:45.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Of the People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Edited by
Ashley Weinberg
Ashley Weinberg
Affiliation:
University of Salford
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Psychology of Democracy
Of the People, By the People, For the People
 , pp. 23 - 170
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Aaldering, L. and Van Der Pas, D. J. (2018). Political leadership in the media: Gender bias in leader stereotypes during campaign and routine times. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 1–21.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. and Sanford, N. J. (1950). Types and syndromes. In The authoritarian personality (Studies in Prejudice Series, American Jewish Committee). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Allen, N., Magni, G., Searing, D. and Warncke, P. (2020). What is a career politician? Theories, concepts, and measures. European Political Science Review, 12(2), 199–217.Google Scholar
Allen, P. and Cairney, P. (2017). What do we mean when we talk about the ‘political class’? Political Studies Review, 15(1), 18–27.Google Scholar
Antonakis, J. (2011). Predictors of leadership: The usual suspects and the suspect traits. In Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.), Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 269–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N. and Rönkkö, M. (2019, July). The endogeneity problem in random intercept models: Are most published results likely false? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), 18927.Google Scholar
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P. and Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.Google Scholar
Barber, J. D. (1972). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Best, H. (2011). Does personality matter in politics? Personality factors as determinants of parliamentary recruitment and policy preferences. Comparative Sociology, 10(6), 928–948.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. and Kenny, M. (2015). Revealing the “secret garden”: The informal dimensions of political recruitment. Politics and Gender, 11(4), 748–753.Google Scholar
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C. and Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1058–1077.Google Scholar
Bono, J. E. and Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901.Google Scholar
Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT Journal, 68(4), 457–459.Google Scholar
Callander, S. (2008). Political motivations. The Review of Economic Studies, 75(3), 671–697.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. and Childs, S. (2010). ‘Wags’, ’wives’ and ‘mothers’… but what about women politicians? Parliamentary Affairs, 63(4), 760–777.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. and Cowley, P. (2014). What voters want: Reactions to candidate characteristics in a survey experiment. Political Studies, 62(4), 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. and Lovenduski, J. (2015). What should MPs do? Public and parliamentarians’ views compared. Parliamentary Affairs, 68(4), 690–708.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Consiglio, C., Picconi, L. and Zimbardo, P. G. (2003). Personalities of politicians and voters: Unique and synergistic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 849–856.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V. and Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: Determinants, dynamics, and potentials. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Francescato, D., Mebane, M., Sorace, R. and Vecchione, M. (2010). Personality foundations of ideological divide: A comparison of women members of parliament and women voters in Italy. Political Psychology, 31(5), 739–762.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M. and Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprara, G. V. and Silvester, J. (2018). The personality attributes of political elites. In Best, H. and Higley, J. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of political elites (pp. 467–488). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M. and Schwartz, S. H. (2012). Why people do not vote: The role of personal values. European Psychologist, 17, 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprara, G. V. and Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59(7), 581–594.Google Scholar
Cassese, E. C. and Holman, M. R. (2018). Party and gender stereotypes in campaign attacks. Political Behavior, 40(3), 785–807.Google Scholar
Christie, R. and Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Corr, P. J. and Matthews, G. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr. and McCrae, R. R. (2006). Trait and factor theories. In Thomas, J. C. and Segal, D. L. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology (Vol. I). Personality and everyday functioning 36. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Costantini, E. and Craik, K. H. (1980). Personality and politicians: California party leaders, 1960–1976. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 641–661.Google Scholar
Davis, K. M. and Gardner, W. L. (2012). Charisma under crisis revisited: Presidential leadership, perceived leader effectiveness, and contextual influences. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 918–933.Google Scholar
de Vries, R. E. and van Prooijen, J. W. (2019). Voters rating politicians’ personality: Evaluative biases and assumed similarity on honesty-humility and openness to experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 144, 100–104.Google Scholar
Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 339–363.Google Scholar
Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(3), 265–291.Google Scholar
Diermeier, D., Keane, M. and Merlo, A. (2005). A political economy model of congressional careers. American Economic Review, 95(1), 347–373.Google Scholar
Dietrich, B. J., Lasley, S., Mondak, J. J., Remmel, M. L. and Turner, J. (2012). Personality and legislative politics: The Big Five trait dimensions among US state legislators. Political Psychology, 33(2), 195–210.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. (2020). Authoritarianism. In Zeigler-Hill, V. and Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1046Google Scholar
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E. and Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 40.Google Scholar
Dumitrica, D. (2014). Politics as “customer relations”: Social media and political authenticity in the 2010 municipal elections in Calgary, Canada. Javnost-The Public, 21(1), 53–69.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573.Google Scholar
Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50–61.Google Scholar
Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C. and McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557.Google Scholar
Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J. and Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy self, know thy leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 702–717.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P. G., Wang, L. and Mamun, K. A. (2011). Are politicians office or policy motivated? The case of US governors’ environmental policies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 241–253.Google Scholar
Gallagher, M. and Marsh, M. (1988). Candidate selection in comparative perspective: The secret garden of politics (Vol. 18). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Garzia, D. (2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697–709.Google Scholar
George, A. L. and George, J. L. (1998). Presidential personality and performance. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Hart, W., Adams, J. M. and Burton, K. A. (2016). Narcissistic for the people: Narcissists and non-narcissists disagree about how to make a good impression. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 69–73, ISSN 0191-8869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, M. G. (1980). Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal characteristics of political leaders. International Studies Quarterly, 24(1), 7–46.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D. and Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US Lombardo, MM, Ruderman, MN, and McCauley, CD (1988). Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 199–216.Google Scholar
Jones, B. (2016). Authenticity in political discourse. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19(2), 489–504.Google Scholar
Jordan, K. N. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2017). The exception or the rule: Using words to assess analytic thinking, Donald Trump, and the American presidency. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 312.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E. and Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542–552.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F. and Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855–875.Google Scholar
Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., Treadway, D. C. and Bentley, J. (2017). Measuring political will in organizations: Theoretical construct development and empirical validation. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2252–2280.Google Scholar
Kartik, N. and McAfee, R. P. (2007). Signaling character in electoral competition. American Economic Review, 97(3), 852–870.Google Scholar
Klinger, J. D., Hollibaugh, G. E. and Ramey, A. J. (2019). What I like about you: Legislator personality and legislator approval. Political Behavior, 41 , 499–525.Google Scholar
Knapen, J. E., Blaker, N. M. and Pollet, T. V. (2017). Size, skills, and suffrage: Motivated distortions in perceived formidability of political leaders. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0188485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kowert, P. A. (1996). Where does the buck stop?: Assessing the impact of presidential personality. Political Psychology, 17(3), 421–452.Google Scholar
Krook, M. and Childs, S. (2010). Women, gender, and politics: A reader. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, K. P. (1969). Political socialization (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawless, J. L. (2015). Female candidates and legislators. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 349–366.Google Scholar
Lee, E. J., Lee, H. Y. and Choi, S. (2020). Is the message the medium? How politicians’ Twitter blunders affect perceived authenticity of Twitter communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106188.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J. and De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378.Google Scholar
Lyons, M. (1997). Presidential character revisited. Political Psychology, 18(4), 791–811.Google Scholar
McCann, S. J. (1992). Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of U.S. presidents: Personological, situational, and zeitgeist factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, H., Silvester, J., Sealy, R., Billimoria, D., Peters, K., Huse, M., Moltner, H., Jane, S. and Göke, J. (2018). Women in power: Contributing factors that impact on women in organizations and politics; psychological research and best practice. Organizational Dynamics, 47 , 189–199.Google Scholar
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (2009). The Five-Factor Model of personality traits: Consensus and controversy. In Corr, P. and Matthews, G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 148–161). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R. and Sutin, A. R. (2018). A five‐factor theory perspective on causal analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 151–166.Google Scholar
Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondak, J. J. and Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 335–362.Google Scholar
Murray, G. R. and Schmitz, J. D. (2011). Caveman politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1215–1235.Google Scholar
Murray, R. (2010). Cracking the highest glass ceiling: A global comparison of women’s campaigns for executive office. Santa Barbara: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Nai, A., Martínez i Coma, F. and Maier, J. (2019). Donald Trump, populism, and the Age of Extremes: Comparing the personality traits and campaigning styles of Trump and other leaders worldwide. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 49(3), 609–643.Google Scholar
Olivola, C. Y. and Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83–110.Google Scholar
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B. and Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 US presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 161–192.Google Scholar
Post, L. A., Raile, A. N. and Raile, E. D. (2010). Defining political will. Politics and Policy, 38(4), 653–676.Google Scholar
POTUS.com (2020). Presidential Heights. Accessed from www.potus.com/presidential-facts/presidential-heights/.Google Scholar
Ramey, A., Klingler, J. and Hollibaugh, G. (2016). Measuring elite personality using speech. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(1), 163–184.Google Scholar
Raskin, R. N. and Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590.Google Scholar
Rice, M. G., Remmel, M. L. and Mondak, J. J. (2020). Personality on the Hill: Expert Evaluations of US Senators’ Psychological Traits. Political Research Quarterly, 74(3), 674–687. doi:10.1177/1065912920928587Google Scholar
Roets, A. and Van Hiel, A. (2009). The ideal politician: Impact of voters’ ideology. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(1), 60–65.Google Scholar
Rohrer, S. R. (2014). What makes a prime minister great?: A leadership trait analysis of the effectiveness of British prime ministers from 1902 to 2004. Research and Politics, 1(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R. and Ones, D. S. (2000). Assessing the US presidents using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7(4), 403–419.Google Scholar
Sajons, G. B. (2020). Estimating the causal effect of measured endogenous variables: A tutorial on experimentally randomized instrumental variables. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(5), 1–17.Google Scholar
Schill, D. (2012). The visual image and the political image: A review of visual communication research in the field of political communication. Review of Communication, 12(2), 118–142.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. and Bos, A. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266.Google Scholar
Schumacher, G. and Zettler, I. (2019). House of Cards or West Wing? Self-reported HEXACO traits of Danish politicians. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 173–181.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2017). Individual values across cultures. In: Chuch, A. T. (Ed.) The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Bain, P., Bianchi, G., Caprara, M. G., Cieciuch, J., Kirmanoglu, H., Baslevent, C., Lönnqvist, J. E., Mamali, C., Manzi, J., Pavlopoulos, V., Posnova, T., Schoen, H., Silvester, J., Tabernero, C., Torres, C., Verkasalo, M., Vondráková, E., Welzel, C. and Zaleski, Z. (2014). Basic personal values underlie and give coherence to political values: A cross national study in 15 countries. Political Behavior, 36(4), 899–930.Google Scholar
Silvester, J. (2012). Recruiting politicians: Designing competency-based selection for UK parliamentary candidates. In Weinberg, A. (Ed.), The psychology of politicians (pp. 21–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silvester, J. (2008). The good, the bad and the ugly: Politics and politicians at work. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 23, 107–148.Google Scholar
Silvester, J. and Dykes, C. (2007). Selecting political candidates: A longitudinal study of assessment centre performance and political success in the 2005 UK General Election. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 11–25.Google Scholar
Silvester, J. and Wyatt, M. (2018). Political effectiveness at work. In Ones, D. S., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C. and Sinangil, H. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology: V1: Personnel psychology and employee performance, 228–247. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Silvester, J., Wyatt, M., Ellen, B.P. III, and Ferris, G. R. (2020). Candidate effects on election outcomes: Political skill, campaign efficacy and intentions in a British general election. Applied Psychology: An International Review 1–41, doi.org/10.1111/apps.12292.Google Scholar
Silvester, J., Wyatt, M. and Randall, R. (2014). Politician personality, Machiavellianism, and political skill as predictors of performance ratings in political roles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2), 258–279.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2006). Presidential IQ, openness, intellectual brilliance, and leadership: Estimates and correlations for 42 US chief executives. Political Psychology, 27(4), 511–526.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 928–936.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1986). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 149.Google Scholar
Spangler, W. D. and House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 439.Google Scholar
Stiers, D., Larner, J., Kenny, J., Breitenstein, S., Vallée-Dubois, F. and Lewis-Beck, M. (2021). Candidate Authenticity: ‘To Thine Own Self Be True’. Political Behavior, 43, 1181–1204.Google Scholar
Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S. and Pollet, T. V. (2013). Tall claims? Sense and nonsense about the importance of height of US presidents. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 159–171.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1669–1702.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Cross, R. W. and Brcic, J. (2011). Two years of ups and downs: Barack Obama’s patterns of integrative complexity, motive imagery, and values. Political Psychology, 32(6), 1007–1033.Google Scholar
Sussman, A. B., Petkova, K. and Todorov, A. (2013). Competence ratings in US predict presidential election outcomes in Bulgaria. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 771–775.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(2), 365.Google Scholar
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A. and Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.Google Scholar
Treadway, D. C. (2012). Political will in organizations. In Ferris, G. R. and Treadway, D. C. (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations: 531–556. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
UN Women (2018). Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation. www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-andfigures. Accessed date: 2 July 2019.Google Scholar
Valgarðsson, V., Clarke, N., Jennings, W. and Stoker, G. (2020). The good politician and political trust: An authenticity gap in British politics? Political Studies. doi:10.1177/0032321720928257Google Scholar
Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., Schoen, H., Cieciuch, J., Silvester, J., Bain, P., Bianchi, G., Kirmanoglu, H., Baslevent, C., Mamali, C., Manzi, J., Pavlopoulos, V., Posnova, T., Torres, C., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.‐E., Vondráková, E., Welzel, C. and Alessandri, G. (2015). Personal values and political activism: A cross‐national study. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 84–106.Google Scholar
Vivyan, N. and Wagner, M. (2015). What do voters want from their local MP? The Political Quarterly, 86(1), 33–40.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, M (1991). The rise of candidate-centered politics: Presidential elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, D. G. (2010). Why achievement motivation predicts success in business but failure in politics: The importance of personal control. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1637–1668.Google Scholar
Winter, D. G. (2003). Measuring the motives of political actors. In Post, J. (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders (pp. 153–177). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 196–202.Google Scholar
Wyatt, M. and Silvester, J. (2018). Do voters get it right? A test of the ascription-actuality trait theory of leadership with political elites. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 609–621.Google Scholar

References

Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M. and Fraley, C. R. (2007). Voters’ personality traits in presidential elections. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1199–1208.Google Scholar
Bardi, A. and Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behaviour: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220.Google Scholar
Barenbaum, N. B. and Winter, D. G. (2008). History of modern personality theory and research. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W. and Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 3–26). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Best, H. (2011). Does personality matter in politics? Personality factors as determinants of parliamentary recruitment and policy preferences. Comparative Sociology, 10, 928–948.Google Scholar
Best, H. and Vogel, L. (2018). Representative elites. In Best, H., Daloz, J. P., and Hoffman-Lange, U.. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of political elites (pp. 339–357). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Bilsky, W., Janik, M. and Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values-evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 759–776.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. (2009). Rational decisions. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, I. (2019). Age- and gender-related differences in the structure and the meaning of personal values. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 336–343.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Francescato, D., Mebane, M., Sorace, R. and Vecchione, M. (2010). Personality foundations of ideological divide: A comparison of women Members of Parliament and women voters in Italy. Political Psychology, 31, 739–762.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M. and Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice source. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V. and Zimbardo, P. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59, 581–594.Google Scholar
Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423–452.Google Scholar
Cieciuch, J., Schwartz, S. H. and Vecchione, M. (2013). Applying the refined values theory to past data: What can researchers gain? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(8), 1215–1234.Google Scholar
Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.). Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J. and Moore, M. K. (1997). Elite and mass foreign policy opinions: Who is leading this charade? Social Science Quarterly, 78(3), 641–656.Google Scholar
Dean, J. and Maiguashca, B. (2020). Did somebody say populism? Towards a renewal and reorientation of populism studies. Journal of Political Ideologies, 25(1), 11–27. doi: 10.1080/13569317.2020.1699712Google Scholar
Dye, T. R. and Ziegler, H. (1978). The irony of democracy. Boston, MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
Federico, C. M. (2015). The structure, foundations, and expression of ideology. In Berinsky, A. (Ed.), New directions in public opinion (2nd ed.) (pp. 81–103). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In Sears, D. O., Huddy, L. and Jervis, R. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M. and Ha, S. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133.Google Scholar
Hanania, R. (2017). The personalities of politicians: A Big Five study of American legislators. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 164–167.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K. and McDermott, R. (2011). Man is by nature a political animal: Evolution, biology and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, L., Sears, D. and Levy, J. (Eds.) (2013). Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H. G. and Federico, C. M. (2017). Open versus closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joly, J., Soroka, S. and Loewen, P. (2019) Nice guys finish last: Personality and political success, Acta Polit, 54, 667–683, doi:10.1057/s41269–018-0095-zGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M. and Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. and Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. (1992). Introduction to the problems of legal theory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. R. (1998). Communication and opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 167–197.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. R. and Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, H., Johnston, C. and Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeper, T. J. and Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35(1), 129–156.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. and Popkin, S. L. (Eds.) (2000). Elements of reason. Cognition, choice and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
May, J. (1973). Opinion structure of political parties: The special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies, 21(2), 135–151.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P. and Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCloskey, H. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58, 361–382.Google Scholar
McGraw, K. M. (2000). Contributions of the cognitive approach to political psychology. Political Psychology, 27(4), 805–832.Google Scholar
Näsström, S. (2015). Democratic representation beyond election. Constellations, 22(1), 1–12. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12123Google Scholar
Nørgaard, A. S. and Klemmensen, R. (2018). The personalities of Danish MPs: Trait- and aspect-level differences. Journal of Personality, 87(2), 267–275. doi:10.1111/jopy.12388Google Scholar
Opp, K. (2017). Rational choice theory and methodological individualism. In Kivisto, P. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of social theory (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pacheco, G. and Owen, B. (2015). Moving through the political participation hierarchy: A focus on personal values. Applied Economics, 47(3), 222–238.Google Scholar
Page, B. I. and Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 80, 1249–1270.Google Scholar
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G. and Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
Peffley, M. and Rohrschneider, R. (2003). Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: A multilevel model of democratic learning. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 243–257.Google Scholar
Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S. H. and Davidov, E. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries, Political Psychology, 32, 537–561.Google Scholar
Riemann, R., Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergl, S. and Richter, M. (1993). Personality and attitudes towards current political topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 313–321.Google Scholar
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Oppenheim, S., Elster, A. and Gal, A. (2014). Integrating content and structure aspects of the self: Traits, values, and self-improvement. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 144–157.Google Scholar
Sagiv, L. and Roccas, S. (2017). What personal values are and what they are not: Taking a cross-cultural perspective. In Roccas, S. and Sagiv, L. (Eds.), Values and behaviour: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3–13). New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Sandy, C. J., Gosling, S. D., Schwartz, S. H. and Koelkebeck, T. (2017). The development and validation of brief and ultrabrief measures of values. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 545–555.Google Scholar
Saroglou, V. and Munoz-Garcia, A. (2008). Individual differences in religion and spirituality: An issue of personality traits and/or values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 83–101.Google Scholar
Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saward, M. (2006). The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory, 5(3), 297–318.Google Scholar
Schoen, H. and Schumann, S. (2007). Personality traits, partisan attitudes, and voting behaviour: Evidence from Germany. Political Psychology, 28, 471–498.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M. and Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.Google Scholar
Scott, C. and Medeiros, M. (2020). Personality and political careers: What personality types are likely to run for office and get elected? Personality and Individual Differences, 152. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109600Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M. (2000). Taking sides: A fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D. and Popkin, S. L. (Eds.), Elements of reason (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A. and Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sood, G. and Iyengar, S. (2014). All in the eye of the beholder: Partisan affect and ideological accountability. Unpublished manuscript [Online]. Available at: www.gsood.com/research/papers/inNout.pdf [Accessed: 14 February 2018].Google Scholar
Tiberj, K. and Kerrouche, E. (2013). Up and down, old and new: Values and value systems of MPs and voters in France. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 19(2), 160–177.Google Scholar
Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S., Caprara, G., Schoen, H., Cieciuch, J., Silvester, J., Bain, P., Bianchi, G., Kirmanoglu, H., Baslevent, C., Mamali, C., Manzi, J., Pavlopoulos, V., Posnova, T., Torres, C., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J., Vondráková, E., Welzel, C. and Alessandri, G. (2015). Personal values and political activism: A cross-national study. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1): 84–106.Google Scholar
Verplanken, B. and Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–47.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. (2020a). Who wants to be a politician? Basic values and candidate emergence in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1565–1581. doi:10.1017/S0007123419000814Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. (2020b). Who enters politics and why? Basic human values in the UK Parliament. Bristol: Bristol University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. (2019). The winner takes it all? A psychological study of political success among UK Members of Parliament. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(4), 711–733. doi:10.1093/pa/gsz017Google Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Allen, B., Fox, R., Geis-King, I., Gibbons, V., Korris, M., Pavlova, P. and Raftery, M. (2014). Tuned in or turned off? Public attitudes to Prime Minister’s Questions. London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
Bates, S. R., Kerr, P., Byrne, C. and Stanley, L. (2014). Questions to the Prime Minister: A comparative study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron. Parliamentary Affairs, 67, 253–280.Google Scholar
Bercow, J. (2010). Speech to the Centre for Parliamentary Studies. Retrieved from www.johnbercow.co.uk./content/speech-centre-parliamentary-studies.Google Scholar
Blair, T. (2010). A journey. London: Arrow Books.Google Scholar
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). (2008, 29 April). Cameron ‘unable to keep PMQs vow’. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7372660.stm.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, P. (2013). The role of adversarial discourse in political opposition: Prime Minister’s questions and the British phone-hacking scandal. Language and Dialogue, 3, 254–272.Google Scholar
Bull, P. (2008). Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 324–332.Google Scholar
Bull, P. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bull, P. (1994). On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(2), 115–131.Google Scholar
Bull, P., Elliott, J., Palmer, D. and Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267–284.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Fetzer, A. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. International Review of Social Psychology, 23(2/3), 155–185.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14(4), 651–666.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Strawson, W. (2020). Can’t answer? Won’t answer? An analysis of equivocal responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(2), 429–449.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Waddle, M. (2019). ‘Let me now answer, very directly, Marie’s question’: The impact of quoting members of the public in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 56–78.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Wells, P. (2012). Adversarial discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 30–48.Google Scholar
Chester, D. N. and Bowring, N. (1962). Questions in Parliament. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403–442.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25 , 349–367.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P., Jones, G. W., Burnham, J., Elgie, R. and Fysh, P. (1993). Leaders, politics and institutional change: The decline of prime ministerial accountability to the House of Commons, 1868–1990. British Journal of Political Science, 23 , 267–298.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P., Jones, G. W. and O’Leary, B. (1990). Prime Ministers and the Commons: Patterns of behaviour, 1868 to 1987. Public Administration, 68 , 123–140.Google Scholar
Giddings, P. and Irwin, H. (2005). Objects and questions. In Giddings, P. (Ed.), The future of Parliament (pp. 67–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. (2012). PMQs: That’s the way to do it! British Journalism Review, 23, 11–13.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Where the action is. In Goffman, E. (Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour (pp. 149–270). New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
The Guardian. (2010, 14 October). Editorial: In praise of… prime minister’s questions. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/14/in-praise-of-prime-ministers-questions.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society, 12, 451–472.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In Scannell, P. (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 76–99). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hoggart, S. (2011, 14 December). Prime Minister’s Questions – or an unpleasant football match. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/dec/14/prime-ministers-questions-football-match.Google Scholar
Hope, C. (2019, 1 May). Theresa May is most evasive Tory leader in past 50 years, scientific study finds. The Telegraph. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/30/theresa-may-evasive-tory-leader-past-50-years-scientific-study/.Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office. (2010a). Parliamentary Questions. (Factsheet P1, Procedure Series). Retrieved from www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p01.pdf.Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office. (2010b). Some Traditions and Customs of the House. (Factsheet G7, General Series). Retrieved from www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/g07.pdf.Google Scholar
House of Commons Procedure Committee (1995). Seventh Report of Session 1994–95, Prime Minister’s Questions, HC 555.Google Scholar
House of Commons Procedure Committee (1991). Third Report of Session 1990–91, Parliamentary Questions, HC 178.Google Scholar
Irwin, H. (1988). Opportunities for backbenchers. In Ryle, M. and Richards, P. G. (Eds.), The Commons under scrutiny (pp. 76–98). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irwin, H., Kennon, A., Natzler, D. and Rogers, R. (1993). Evolving rules. In Franklin, M. and Norton, P. (Eds.), Parliamentary questions (pp. 23–72). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
ITV. (2015, 14 August). Jeremy Corbyn promises ‘new kind of politics’ as he unveils 10-point policy plan. ITV report. Retrieved from www.itv.com/news/2015-08-14/jeremy-corbyn-promises-new-kind-of-politics-as-he-unveils-10-point-policy-plan/.Google Scholar
John, P., Bertelli, A., Jennings, W. and Bevan, S. (2013). Policy agendas in British politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lee, J. R. (1977). Rallying around the flag: Foreign policy events and presidential popularity. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 7, 252–256.Google Scholar
Norton, P. (1993). Introduction: Parliament since 1960. In Franklin, M. and Norton, P. (Eds.), Parliamentary questions (pp. 1–22). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rasiah, P. (2010). A framework for the systematic analysis of evasion in parliamentary discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 664–680.Google Scholar
Sedgemore, B. (1980). The secret constitution. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Thatcher, M. (1993). The Downing Street years. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. P. (2006). United Kingdom: The Prime Minister and Parliament. In Baldwin, N. D. J. (Ed.), Executive leadership and legislative assemblies (pp. 4–37). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Waddle, M. and Bull, P. (2020a). Curbing their antagonism: Topics associated with a reduction in personal attacks at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(3), 543–564.Google Scholar
Waddle, M. and Bull, P. (2020b). ‘You’re important, Jeremy, but not that important’: Personalised responses and equivocation in political interviews. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(2), 560–581.Google Scholar
Waddle, M., Bull, P. and Böhnke, J. R. (2019). ‘He is just the nowhere man of British politics’: Personal attacks in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(1), 61–84.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. (1977). The governance of Britain. London: Sphere.Google Scholar

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. and Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Bros.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P. and Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. In Smith, C. P. (Ed.), Motivation and personality: A handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 401–418). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd-MacMillan, E. M. (2016). Increasing cognitive complexity and collaboration across communities: Being Muslim being Scottish. Journal of Strategic Security, 9(4), 53–78.Google Scholar
Boyd-MacMillan, E. M., Andrews Fearon, P., Ptolomey, A. M. and Mathieson, L. J. (2016). I SEE! Scotland: Tackling sectarianism and promoting community psychosocial health. Journal of Strategic Security, 9(4), 53–78.Google Scholar
Cassel, L., Cross, R., Ivanova, V., Jhangiani, R., Legkaia, K. and Suedfeld, P. (2007). Complexity and values of candidates. Clio’s Psyche, 14(3), 45–47.Google Scholar
Christie, R. and Jahoda, M. (Eds.) (1954). Studies in the scope and methods of ‘The Authoritarian Personality’. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Conway, K. R. and Houck, S. C. (2020). Validating automated integrative complexity: Natural language processing and the Donald Trump test. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(2), 502–524.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Gornick, L. J., Houck, S. C., Anderson, C., Stockert, J., Sessoms, D. and McCue, K. (2016). Are conservatives really more simple‐minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37(6), 777–798.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Gornick, L. J., Houck, S. C., Towgood, K. H. and Conway, K. R. (2011). The hidden implications of radical group rhetoric: Integrative complexity and terrorism. Journal of Asymmetric Conflict, 4(2), 155–165.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Houck, S. C., Gornick, L. J. and Repke, M. A. (2017). Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-Wing Authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39(5), 1049–1067.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Thoemmes, F., Allison, A. M., Towgood, K. H., Wagner, M. J., Davey, K., Salcido, A., Stovall, A.N., Dodds, D.P., Bongard, K. and Conway, K. R. (2008). Two ways to be complex and why they matter: Implications for attitude strength and lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1029–1044.Google Scholar
Coren, S. C. and Suedfeld, P. (1995). Personality correlates of conceptual complexity. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 229–242.Google Scholar
Goldstein, K. M. and Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goodfellow, S. (1992). From Communism to Nazism: The transformation of Alsatian Communists. Journal of Contemporary History, 27(2), 231–258.Google Scholar
Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E. and Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hermann, M. G. (2003). Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In Post, J. M. (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders, with profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 178–212; separate chapters applying the method to the two leaders follow). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Joffee, J. (2020, 13 May). The coronavirus isn’t killing democracy. Tablet, accessed 17 June 2020 from www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/coronavirus-not-killing-democracy.Google Scholar
Koehler, D. (2020). Switching sides: Exploring violent extremist intergroup migration across hostile ideologies. Political Psychology, 41(3), 499–515.Google Scholar
Koehler, D. (2017). Understanding deradicalization: Methods, tools, and programs for countering violent extremism. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lavallee, L. and Suedfeld, P. (1997). Conflict in Clayoquot Sound: Using thematic content analysis to understand psychological aspects of environmental controversy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 194–209.Google Scholar
Levi, A. and Tetlock, P. E. (1980). A cognitive analysis of Japan’s 1941 decision for war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(2), 195–211.Google Scholar
Nemr, C. and Savage, S. (2019). Integrative complexity interventions to prevent and counter violent extremism. Global Center on Cooperative Security. Accessed at: www.globalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GCCS-PB-IC-Interventions-Prevent-Counter-Violent-Extremism-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Porter, C. A. and Suedfeld, P. (1981). Integrative complexity in the correspondence of literary figures: Effects of personal and societal stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 321–330.Google Scholar
Regt, S., Mortelmans, D. and Smits, T. (2011). Left-wing authoritarianism: Not a myth, but a worrisome reality: Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44(4), 299–308.Google Scholar
Riedel, B. (2020, 7 December). Jerrold Post: One of the CIA’s truly great innovators. Brookings, 7 December. Accessed at: www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/12/07/jerrold-post-one-of-the-cias-truly-great-innovators/.Google Scholar
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rothman, N. (2020). New Jersey’s coronavirus response is no “model.” Commentary, 6 August 2020. Accessed 12 August from www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/new-jerseys-coronavirus-response-is-no-model/.Google Scholar
Sales, S. M. (1972). Economic threat as a determinant of conversion in authoritarian and nonauthoritarian churches. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 420–428.Google Scholar
Savage, S. and Liht, J. (2008). Mapping fundamentalisms: The psychology of religion as a sub-discipline in the understanding of religiously motivated violence. Archiv für Religionspsychologie / Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 75–91.Google Scholar
Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J. and Streufert, A. (1967). Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schroder, H. M. and Suedfeld, P. (Eds.) (1971). Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stone, W. F., Lederer, G. and Christie, R. (Eds.) (1993). Strength and weakness: The Authoritarian Personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2014). Political and military geniuses: Psychological profiles and responses to stress. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 244–265). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1669–1702.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2000). Cognitive styles: Personality. In Kazdin, A. E. (Ed. in Chief), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 166–169). New York and Washington, DC: Oxford University Press and Amer. Psychological Assoc.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1994). President Clinton’s policy dilemmas: A cognitive analysis. Political Psychology, 15, 337–349.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1992a). Cognitive managers and their critics. Political Psychology, 13(3), 435–453.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1992b). Bilateral relations between countries and the complexity of newspaper editorials. Political Psychology, 13(4), 601–611.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical professional, and personal factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(60), 1643–1651.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1983). Authoritarian leadership: A cognitive-interactionist view. In Held, J. (Ed.) The cult of power: Dictators in the twentieth century (pp. 1–22). Boulder, CO: East European Monographs.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1981). Indices of world tension in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Political Psychology, 2(3/4), 114–123.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Ahmadian, S. (2018, July). Implicit markers of attitudes toward asylum-seekers. Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Bluck, S. (1993). Changes in integrative complexity accompanying significant life events: Historical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 124–130.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Bluck, S., Loewen, L. and Elkins, D. J. (1994). Sociopolitical values and integrative complexity of members of student political groups. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26, 121–141.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Corteen, R. S. and McCormick, C. (1986). The role of integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his opponents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 498–507.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Cross, R. W. and Logan, C. (2013). Can thematic content analysis separate the pyramid of ideas from the pyramid of action? A comparison among different degrees of commitment to violence. In Cabayan, H., Sitterle, V. and Yandura, M. (Eds.), Looking back, looking forward: Perspectives on terrorism and responses to it (pp. 61–68). Washington, DC; Strategic Multilayer Assessment Occasional White Paper.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Granatstein, J. L. (1995). Leader complexity in personal and professional crises: Concurrent and retrospective information processing. Political Psychology, 16(3), 509–522.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Morrison, B. H. and Kuznar, L. A. (2020). National interests and the meaning of ‘America First’. In Renshon, S. A. and Suedfeld, P. (Eds.), The Trump Doctrine and the emerging international system (pp. 39–70). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Rank, D. A. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 169–178.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E. and Jhangiani, R. (2007). The new psychology of alliances. In Renshon, S. A. and Suedfeld, P. (Eds.), Understanding the Bush Doctrine: Psychology and strategy in an age of terrorism (pp. 105–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E. and Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In Smith, C. P. (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393–400). Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Symposium on the scoring of integrative complexity. (2014). Political Psychology, 35(5), 597–659.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819–827.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 74–83.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D. and Peterson, R. S. (1993). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 115–126.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S. and Berry, J. S. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 500–511.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. and Tyler, A. (1996). Churchill’s cognitive and rhetorical style: The debates over Nazi intentions and self-government for India. Political Psychology, 17(1), 149–170.Google Scholar
Thoemmes, F. J. and Conway, L. G. III. (2007). Integrative complexity of 41 U.S. presidents. Political Psychology, 28(2), 193–226.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. D. and Suedfeld, P. (1988). Leadership performance in crisis: The longevity – complexity link. International Studies Quarterly, 32, 439–451.Google Scholar
Winter, D. G. (2007). The role of motivation, responsibility, and integrative complexity in crisis escalation: Comparative studies of war and peace crises. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 920–937.Google Scholar

References

Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bellur, S. and Sundar, S. S. (2014). How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Design and analysis strategies for capturing the operation of heuristics. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(2), 116–137.Google Scholar
Besley, T. (2005). Political selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 43–60.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. and Wille, A. (2017). Diploma democracy: The rise of political meritocracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M. and Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Byman, D. L. and Pollack, K. M. (2001). Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in. International Security, 25(4), 107–146.Google Scholar
Copeland, D. C. (2001). Theory and history in the study of major war. Security Studies, 10(4), 212–239.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. and Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
Fatas, E., Neugebauer, T. and Tamborero, P. (2007). How politicians make decisions: A political choice experiment. Journal of Economics, 92(2), 167–196.Google Scholar
Fréchette, G. R. (20011). Laboratory experiments: Professionals versus student. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1939219 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939219Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (Eds.) (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M., Alex Hughes, D. and Victor, D. G. (2013). The cognitive revolution and the political psychology of elite decision making. Perspectives on Politics, 11(2), 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592713001084Google Scholar
Hale, T., Webster, S., Petherick, A., Phillips, T. and Kira, B. (2020). Oxford COVID-19 government response tracker. Blavatnik School of Government. Available at: www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/covid-19-government-response-tracker.Google Scholar
Hallsworth, M., Egan, M., Rutter, J. and McCrae, J. (2018). Behavioural government: Using behavioural science to improve how governments make decisions. London: The Behavioural Insights Team.Google Scholar
Heß, M., Scheve, C. von, Schupp, J. and Wagner, G. G. (2013). Members of German federal parliament more risk-loving than general population. SOEP Papers 546. Accessed at: www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.418993.de/diw_sp0546.pdf.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–193.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.Google Scholar
Kelman, M. (2011). The heuristics debate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kertzer, J. D. (2020). Re-assessing elite-public gaps in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12583Google Scholar
Linde, J. and Vis, B. (2017). Do politicians take risks like the rest of us? An experimental test of prospect theory under MPs. Political Psychology, 38(1), 101–117.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2004). Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica, 72(2), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00502.xGoogle Scholar
Mattozzi, A. and Merlo, A. (2008). Political careers or career politicians? Journal of Public Economics, 92(3–4), 597–608.Google Scholar
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2016). Staat van het Bestuur. Available at: https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/254488/staat-van-het-bestuur-2016-webrichtlijnenproof.pdf.Google Scholar
Mintz, A., Redd, S. B. and Vedlitz, A. (2006). Can we generalize from student experiments to the real world in political science, military affairs, and international relations? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5), 757–776.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A. and Shanks, D. R. (2015). Straight choices: The psychology of decision making (2nd ed.). Hove and New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rahat, G. (2007). Candidate selection: The choice before the choice. Journal of Democracy, 18(1), 157–170.Google Scholar
Renshon, J. (2015). Losing face and sinking costs: Experimental evidence on the judgment of political and military leaders. International Organization, 69(3), 659–695.Google Scholar
Sheffer, L. (2018). Behavioural foundations of elite politics: How individual-level characteristics shape the decision making of elected politicians. PhD Dissertation: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Sheffer, L., Loewen, P. J., Soroka, S., Walgrave, S. and Shaefer, T. (2018). Nonrepresentative representatives: An experimental study of the decision making of elected politicians. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 302–321.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 231–295.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S. (2019). The representativeness heuristic in political decision making. In Redlawsk, D. P., Erisen, C., Hennes, E., Oxley, Z., Schreiber, D. and Vis, B. (Eds.), The Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/browse?page=60&pageSize=20&sort=authorsort&subSite=politics.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S. and Vis, B. (2020). Politicians, the representativeness heuristic and decision-making Biases. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09594-6Google Scholar
Stolwijk, S. and Vis, B. (2018). Political decision making and the availability heuristic. Paper prepared for the seventy-sixth Annual MPSA Conference, Chicago, USA, 5–8 April.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.Google Scholar
Vieider, F. and Vis, B. (2019). Prospect theory in political decision making. In Redlawsk, D., Erisen, C., Hennes, E., Oxley, Z., Schreiber, D. and Vis, B. (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/browse?page=60&pageSize=20&sort=authorsort&subSite=politics.Google Scholar
Vis, B. (2019). Heuristics and political elites’ judgment and decision making. Political Studies Review, 17(1), 41–52.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., Epping, L. and Sevenan, J. (2013). Het Informatiemenu van politici en hun medewerkers: Resultaten van Interviews met Federale Parlementsleden, Ministers, Partijvoorzitters en hun Persoonlijke Medewerkers. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar

References

All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Mental Health (2008). Mental health in Parliament. Report by the APPG on Mental Health.Google Scholar
British Psychological Society (BPS) (2020). Cognitive strain in Parliament: How can we reduce psychological stressors to improve policy-making? By Baldwin, A., Pinto, C., Perriard-Abdoh, S and Weinberg, A. Available at: www.bps.org.uk/sites/www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%20-%20Files/Cognitive%20strain%20in%20Parliament.pdf.Google Scholar
British Psychological Society (BPS) (2017). Psychology at Work: Improving wellbeing and productivity in the workplace. By Weinberg, A. and Doyle, N. Available at: www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/psychology-work-improving-wellbeing-and-productivity-workplace.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, R. A., Butterworth, P. and Anstey, K. J. (2016). An examination of the long-term impact of job strain on mental health and wellbeing over a 12-year period. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology: The International Journal for Research in Social and Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health Services, 51(5), 725–733.Google Scholar
Butterworth, P., Leach, L. S., McManus, S. and Stansfeld, S. A. (2013). Common mental disorders, unemployment and psychosocial job quality: Is a poor job better than no job at all? Psychological Medicine, 43(8), 1763–1772.Google Scholar
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P. Jr, Harrison, R. V. and Pinneau, S. R. Jr. (1975). Job demands and work health. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, NIOSH Publication No. 75–160. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Cooper-Thomas, H. and Silvester, J. (2014). Ideas and advice to accelerate the transition for new MPs entering New Zealand’s House of Representatives. Available at: https://margf2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/report-to-support-new-mp-adjustment-final.pdf.Google Scholar
Cox, L. (2018). The bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff. Independent inquiry report. Available from: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/conduct-in-parliament/dame-laura-cox-independent-inquiry-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands – resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.Google Scholar
Emery, L., Meier, P. and Mortelmans, D. (2018). Juggling three life spheres: Reconciling work, family and politics. Community, Work & Family, 21(2), 226–242.Google Scholar
Every-Palmer, S., Barry-Walsh, J. and Pathé, M. (2015). Harassment, stalking, threats and attacks targeting New Zealand politicians: A mental health issue. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(7), 634–641.Google Scholar
Fazekas, Z. and Hatemi, P. K. (2020) Narcissism in political participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi.org/10.1177/0146167220919212Google Scholar
Flinders, M. and Kelso, A. (2011), Mind the gap: Political analysis, public expectations and the parliamentary decline thesis. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13, 249–268.Google Scholar
Flinders, M., Weinberg, A., Weinberg, J., Geddes, M. and Kwiatkowski, R. (2020). Governing under pressure? The mental wellbeing of politicians. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(2), 253–273.Google Scholar
Freeman, H. (1991). The human brain and political behaviour. British Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 19–32.Google Scholar
Ghana News (2017). MP wants counseling office for parliamentarians. 17 March. Available at: http://3news.com/mp-wants-counseling-office-for-parliamentarians/.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. and Williams, D. (1988). General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
Hansard (2012). Mental health. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-06-14/debates/12061445000002/MentalHealth.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. (2012). Political leadership and its development. In Weinberg, A. (Ed.), The psychology of politicians (pp. 97–120). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hassard, J., Teoh, K. R. H., Visockaite, G., Dewe, P. and Cox, T. (2018). The cost of work-related stress to society. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ignatieff, M. (2013). Fire and ashes: Success and failure in politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jopling Report (1992). Report from the Select Committee on sittings of the House, vol.1. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.Google Scholar
Karasek, R. A. and Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kenyan Ministry for Health (2019). Kenya launches Quality Rights Initiative to promote mental health care. Available at: www.health.go.ke/kenya-launches-qualityrights-initiative-to-promote-mental-health-care/.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowski, R. (2012). Politicians and power: MPs in the UK Parliament. In Weinberg, A. (Ed.), The psychology of politicians (pp. 39–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S., Waldman, I., Landfield, K., Watts, A., Rubenzer, S. and Faschingbauer, T. (2012). ‘Fearless dominance and the US presidency, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489–505.Google Scholar
Malenga, M. (2019). The work-life balance of an MP in Malawi. The Work-Life Balance Bulletin, 3(1). Leicester: BPS Division of Occupational Psychology.Google Scholar
Malenga, M. (2016). An exploration of occupational stress among Members of Parliament: A case of parliamentarians in Malawi. Unpublished thesis, Africa University of Guidance, Counselling and Youth Development.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1859/1983) On liberty (Reprinted). Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mindful Nation (2015). Mindful Nation UK. Report by the Mindfulness All-Party Parliamentary Group. Available at: www.themindfulnessinitiative.org/mindful-nation-report.Google Scholar
Owen, D. and Davidson, J. (2009). Hubris Syndrome. Brain, 132, 1396–1406.Google Scholar
Paul, K. I. and Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264–282.Google Scholar
Poulter, D., Votruba, N., Bakolis, I., Debell, F., Das-Munshi, J. and Thornicroft, G. (2019). Mental health of UK Members of Parliament in the House of Commons: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027892. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027892Google Scholar
Robb, A. (2011). Black dog daze: Public life, private demons. Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (2017). Losing political office. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2020). Depression in adults. Available at: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mental-health/problems-disorders/depression.Google Scholar
Silvester, J. and Dykes, C. (2007). Selecting political candidates: A longitudinal study of assessment centre performance and political success in the 2005 UK General Election. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), pp. 11–25.Google Scholar
Silvester, J., Wyatt, M. and Randall, R. (2013). Politician personality, Machiavellianism, and political skill as predictors of performance ratings in political roles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2), pp. 258–279.Google Scholar
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) (2019). Underused EAPs are a missed opportunity to help workers. Available at: www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/under-used-eaps-are-a-missed-opportunity.aspx.Google Scholar
Sutherland, D. (2019). Mental health wins record funding in New Zealand’s first ‘well-being budget’. Available at: https://theconversation.com/mental-health-wins-record-funding-in-new-zealands-first-well-being-budget-118047.Google Scholar
Theakston, K. (2012). Life after political death, Representation, 48(2), 139–149.Google Scholar
van Horn, J. E., Taris, T., Schaufeli, W. B. and Schreurs, P. J. G. (2004). The structure of occupational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 365–375.Google Scholar
Warr, P. (1989). Work, unemployment and mental health. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Miller, D. J., Campbell, W. K., Waldman, I. D., Rubenzer, S. J. and Faschingbauer, T. J., (2013). The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism: Implications for successful and unsuccessful leadership among US Presidents. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2379–2389.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. (2015). A longitudinal study of the impact of changes in the job and the expenses scandal on UK national politicians’ experiences of work, stress and the home-work interface. Parliamentary Affairs, 68(2), 248–271.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. (2012). Should the job of national politician carry a government health warning? The impact of psychological strain on politicians. In Weinberg, A., A. (Ed.), The psychology of politicians, pp. 123–142. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. (2007). Your destiny in their hands: Job loss and success in Members of Parliament. British Psychological Society annual conference, York. Proceedings of the BPS, 15(2), 135.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. and Cooper, C. L. (2003). Stress among national politicians elected to Parliament for the first time. Stress and Health, 19, 111–117.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A., Cooper, C. L. and Weinberg, A. (1999). Workload, stress and family life in British Members of Parliament and the psychological impact of reforms to their working hours. Stress Medicine, 15, 79–87.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. (2020). Emotional labour and occupational wellbeing in political office. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120959044Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. and Weinberg, A. (2019). The mental health of politicians: Testing the parameters (poster presentation). Annual conference of International Society for Political Psychology, Berlin.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2020). Global challenge for movement on mental health kicks off as lack of investment in mental health leaves millions without access to services. Available at: www.who.int/news/item/07-10-2020-global-challenge-for-movement-on-mental-health-kicks-off-as-lack-of-investment-in-mental-health-leaves-millions-without-access-to-services.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2018). Mental health: Strengthening our response. Available at: www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2011). Impact of economic crises on mental health. Available at: www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/134999/e94837.pdf.Google Scholar
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 25, 179–201.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Of the People
  • Edited by Ashley Weinberg, University of Salford
  • Book: Psychology of Democracy
  • Online publication: 24 February 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774871.003
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Of the People
  • Edited by Ashley Weinberg, University of Salford
  • Book: Psychology of Democracy
  • Online publication: 24 February 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774871.003
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Of the People
  • Edited by Ashley Weinberg, University of Salford
  • Book: Psychology of Democracy
  • Online publication: 24 February 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774871.003
Available formats
×